[goodcitywhenfinished]

So am I correct in saying Metrolinx is not purchasing any EMUs under GO Expansion? And has no plans to?

I couldn’t find much info online, the GO expansion Wikipedia still states that some EMUs will be purchased (though it references a business case from 2015)

 

[chrisw]

Well, there's a 2 year co-development phase that ends next year?

 

[crs1026]

So am I correct in saying Metrolinx is not purchasing any EMUs under GO Expansion? And has no plans to?

I couldn’t find much info online, the GO expansion Wikipedia still states that some EMUs will be purchased (though it references a business case from 2015)

Only the consortium really knows.

The spectator community has reached all sorts of consensuses about what equipment GO will end up with, and certainly all types have been proposed at one time or another.... but the actual decisionmakers likely haven't landed, and their data may be differ from what the enthusiast community is so fixated on.... and they haven't tipped their hand in any official way..

- Paul

 

[generalcanada]

So am I correct in saying Metrolinx is not purchasing any EMUs under GO Expansion? And has no plans to?

I couldn’t find much info online, the GO expansion Wikipedia still states that some EMUs will be purchased (though it references a business case from 2015)

100% there will be no EMUS under go expansion ending in 2032. I can find the tweets from early 2022 when the contract signing was announced.
Its as I said, the consortium of DB and Alstom came in and said "you dont need EMUS' just use your bi-levels. refurbrish them, buy electric locos and service levels asked for in the RFP by whatever they said."

 

[generalcanada]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517189729342701569

as a reminder:

"The proposal is to use electric locomotives with the existing coaches. At FBC stage, thinking was EMUs were needed in some areas to achieve the service levels, but proponent showed how it's possible to do with upgraded track, signaling and electric locos. ^pp"

FBC= final business case from 2016

 

[T3G]

I personally didn’t like the video, a lot of grossly expensive asks considering the capital we’re already spending to electrify and improve the network.

It’s also very tangential in discussing opportunities unlocked by getting rid of bi-level carriages – granted the video doesn’t have EMU in the title but has a focal point around EMUs and doesn’t discuss it in much depth. The main EMU argument is just “here’s a list of places that use EMUs.”

In considering a transition to EMUs, we’d not only be making a huge initial investment but also committing to a much higher operational and maintenance cost, especially for the length of trains we run. A study on the Amtrak Vermonter yielded the following key result regarding MU vs locomotive performance:

(Document here: a further read is interesting )


… Truly incredible breakthrough, Reece.

What are the opportunities that are unlocked by getting rid of BiLevels?

I can only see negatives. To match the capacity of one BiLevel coach you'd need multiple single level coaches, which would cost more than a smaller amount of BiLevels, and require platform expansion, itself no small request.

 

[crs1026]

What are the opportunities that are unlocked by getting rid of BiLevels?

I can only see negatives. To match the capacity of one BiLevel coach you'd need multiple single level coaches, which would cost more than a smaller amount of BiLevels, and require platform expansion, itself no small request.

It's a difference in design vision. Some believe that the basic template should be much closer to a traditional subway, where the inside capacity matches the door capacity. This enables very rapid loading/unloading, and thus greater turnover of riders... a constant on and off of people making short trips along the line. The theory is, If you have more people than will fit one one train, add more trains, running on much closer headways.... rather than adding a second level but requiring much longer dwell at each station because bilevels take longer to load.

There are also cost and operating differences related to vehicle weight, length of trains (and platforms), and fleet size, and crewing requirements..

There is no "right" answer, and each of these attributes (and their cost-benefit) gets proven and rebutted, depending on one's POV. There are precedents for both all over the world.

I don't have an opinion, other than as a taxpayer.... the prudent approach is to "play the ball where it lies", ie there is an enormous investment in the existing fleet, and it makes the most economic sense to leverage that investment and squeeze every last mile out of the bilevels before they are replaced. Doing a whole one-time reinvestment in a new fleet would be enormously wasteful, regardless of what the long term vision is.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

PS - these debates often overlook the projected scaling of the GO system. A system or single line that carries X million riders per year may have a preference for one type of equipment, where a system that carries 3X or 0.5X may have a whole different set of data that argues for a very different solution. We really don't know how GO's equation may align or differ from what we see another system doing....the projections and data is buried in the BCA documents, but we don't pull them out or compare them to another system. We seem to just make global declarations that the spreadsheet may not agree with.

Put another way, the optimum system design for LSW may be radically different than for the Richmond Hill or Bolton lines. And again, the consortium will have to decide whether the cost of a tailor-made solution optimised for each line is more attractive than the cost of a single standardised footprint that saves money in some ways but accepts tradeoffs in the interest of uniformity.

My point being - the sidewalk superintendents who insist that one way will be better probably haven't seem ML's spreadsheet and specific data points, so their opinion is fundamentally uninformed.

We will have to wait and see, and with the P3 approach there won't be much public input or debate. Our opinions will not drive the decision. It will be what it will be.
´
- Paul

 

[Willybru21]

I can only see negatives. To match the capacity of one BiLevel coach you'd need multiple single level coaches, which would cost more than a smaller amount of BiLevels, and require platform expansion, itself no small request.

That’s not entirely true, while I agree with the rest of you that getting EMU’s at the current stage would be wasteful, since we have 979 coaches that are still in good condition.

But when you increase service the length of the trains can decrease, ridership is spread out over multiple trips instead of having one train every half hour taking on everyone that arrives to the station in that 30 minute period.

If frequencies are good enough there definitely won’t be a need for behemoth 12 car bi-level trains, since the amount of people one 12 car train takes right now would be taking multiple frequent, smaller trains.

 

[Hairball]

I'd love to see them switch to EMUs, but wouldn't electric locomotives with shorter trains be an improvement in itself given that acceleration should be better, which is one of the biggest problems with the 12 car mammoths they usually run.

On the other hand, if the goal is to run shorter, frequent trains, a lot of the GO platforms are being severely overbuilt. A 12 car platform is around 300m? Even if they continue to run bilevels, could they at least add additional doors to the cars?

 

[drum118]

Once electrifying of the system gets underway, it will take decades to change GO fleet starting with the oldest cars in the fleet being replace,

As we see today, GO is running different length of trains compared to the one length in the past, GO is the only system I have seen to date that runs 12 cars bilevels as most systems will see a max of 8 cars and 3 for min.

In most cases today, GO doesn't needs 12 car trains all day on the line, but to costly to have 2 fleets setup to deal with it as well breaking trains down or up to meet the load need.

With EMU's, you can break trains down or up on the fly as needed starting with a set size of a train. It can be a 3-5 car set and you add another set or 2 to it to meet the ridership needs for x period and then remove a set or 2 for the low ridership needs. This saves on wear and tear not only on the equipment, but the power consumption and for tracks.

When looking at the big picture for GO System now and down the road when service is 15 minutes or less, you can see the lines where a 3-5 car set is needed in place what out there now.

By having an 3-5 car set, you remove the lost space for having a locomotive on the train.

It also allow to ability to break a train apart where one set continues to the end of the line and add a returning car to that train. This would apply to a London and Niagara Fall train or an future line where ridership is low for that end.

Every system I have seen to date is not a one size fit all and has a mixture of different type of equipment from BiLevel with an locomotive to EMU. Then you have systems using single level cars in place of BiLevel cars.

The sooner the building of the electrifying system starts, better performance will start to take place and improve the quality of service for riders and help to move more people out of their car. It going to take 2-3 years to start getting new locomotives and that has yet happen and one hopes an order/tender is place in 2024 to start get things moving. We are already 4 years behind having a line electrify and looks like another 2 years.

 

[seanlucat]

Thoughts? Will going with Elocos instead of EMU's really be that detrimental to service?

Bit ranty but In regards to Reece’s video, You’d assume that the closest comparable systems to GO post-electrification would be the systems of Australia and Germany. But station spacing would say otherwise with it staying typical of Loco-hauled North American Commuter services. You could easily halve our station spacing by building infill stations before even thinking bout getting EMU’s. Obviously thinking longterm, GO should be planning to order EMU’s once the necessary stations and infrastructure are built and the existing railcars are getting to retirement age.
(side note GO could lease out Amtrak’s ASC-64’s for relatively cheap as they are planning to replace them by 2030 with the new Siemens fleet as a quick way to electrify our services.)

Station Spacing comparison:

• Melbourne Metro: 450km with 250 stations - 1.8
• Berlin S-Bahn: 350km and 175 stations - 2
• Sydney Trains: 375km and 170 stations - 2.20
• Hamburg S-Bahn:175km and 70 stations - 2.5
• Frankfurt S-Bahn: 300km and 112 stations - 2.67
• Munich S-Bahn: 434km and 150 stations - 2.89
• Septa: 450km, 155 stations - 2.90*
• Metra: 785km and 241 stations - 3.25
• Caltrain: 125km, 31 stations - 4
• Brisbane Cityrail: 750km and 175 stations - 4.28
• LIRR: 512km (1100km) and 126 stations - 4.06 (8.73) - 6.39(av)*
• GO: 550km and 80 stations - 6.87
• MARC: 300km, 42 stations - 7.14
• Metro North: 620km (1275km) and 124 stations - 4.92 (10.28) - 7.6(av)*
• NJ Transit: 1615km, 166 stations - 9.72
• Metrolink: 880km, 67 stations - 13.13

*use both loco hauled and EMU trains in service with a much denser station stop spacing on the lines served by EMU’s*

 

[cplchanb]

I dont normally disagree with Reese here but in this case I think hes downplaying the costs massively.

We were never looking at full fleet replacement. That cost was going to be massive. 960 train cars do not come cheap. especially when youre 20$ billion deep in an expansion plan
Could they have done that? well go back to 2016 and rewrite the business case. Im skeptical it would choose it anyway
We are never getting rid of our diesel trains as we have discussed in this thread in the past.

Whatever we were going to do was basically peak service only with EMU's. The rest being run by smaller 6 car electric locomotives

Which would be like only a couple EMU's needed.

Now hes right in the points are big pluses. being able to plop down stations wherever like cherry to increase reachability, but we have a big problem in maintaining, not 1, not 2, but 3 separate train fleets (diesels, and their cabs, electric locos as well)

DB basically came in and said "naw you dont need all that, just use your existing fleet, do upgrades on the cheap, use this service plan". And boom they got a frequency better than that 2016 plan

I will go back to one of Reeses old videos where he said "Frequency is king". If you have a choice between frequency and peak service speed of your commute, choose frequency

I think DB was mandated to keep as much of the status quo as possible in line with the shoulder shrug if it aint broke mentality. this is the biggest problem where we are
resting on our laurels from 50 years ago and not continuously striving to innovate. RER is a concept from the 90s and we are touting it as a 21st century gamechanger whereas we shouldve
had this a long time ago by international standards. sure theres initial capital involved but the ceiling for these bilevels is much lower than emus and im afraid were going to just shrug our shoulders to innovation
for the next 50 years after we electrify.

 

[cplchanb]

Bit ranty but In regards to Reece’s video, You’d assume that the closest comparable systems to GO post-electrification would be the systems of Australia and Germany. But station spacing would say otherwise with it staying typical of Loco-hauled North American Commuter services. You could easily halve our station spacing by building infill stations before even thinking bout getting EMU’s. Obviously thinking longterm, GO should be planning to order EMU’s once the necessary stations and infrastructure are built and the existing railcars are getting to retirement age.
(side note GO could lease out Amtrak’s ASC-64’s for relatively cheap as they are planning to replace them by 2030 with the new Siemens fleet as a quick way to electrify our services.)

Station Spacing comparison:

• Melbourne Metro: 450km with 250 stations - 1.8
• Berlin S-Bahn: 350km and 175 stations - 2
• Sydney Trains: 375km and 170 stations - 2.20
• Hamburg S-Bahn:175km and 70 stations - 2.5
• Frankfurt S-Bahn: 300km and 112 stations - 2.67
• Munich S-Bahn: 434km and 150 stations - 2.89
• Septa: 450km, 155 stations - 2.90*
• Metra: 785km and 241 stations - 3.25
• Caltrain: 125km, 31 stations - 4
• Brisbane Cityrail: 750km and 175 stations - 4.28
• LIRR: 512km (1100km) and 126 stations - 4.06 (8.73) - 6.39(av)*
• GO: 550km and 80 stations - 6.87
• MARC: 300km, 42 stations - 7.14
• Metro North: 620km (1275km) and 124 stations - 4.92 (10.28) - 7.6(av)*
• NJ Transit: 1615km, 166 stations - 9.72
• Metrolink: 880km, 67 stations - 13.13

*use both loco hauled and EMU trains in service with a much denser station stop spacing on the lines served by EMU’s*

what is the density for JR's systems? id be its even more denser than melbourne.

 

[seanlucat]

what is the density for JR's systems? id be its even more denser than melbourne.

from wikipedia, "tokyo's rail system has roughly 1200 stations over approximately 2500km of track", so 2.08km between stations